Advertisement

When Cell Phones Become Travel Buddies: Social Attribution to Mobile Phones in Travel

  • Iis TussyadiahEmail author
Conference paper

Abstract

Applying the computing technology continuum of perspective model into mobile technology, this study investigates tourists’ social attribution to mobile phones while travelling. The tendency to place social attribution to and interact socially with mobile phones in the context of travel is influenced by tourists’ perception of the positive social characteristics of mobile phones (i.e., object attribution) and the intensity of mobile phone use for travel-related purposes at tourism destinations (i.e., circumstance attribution). It was found that tourists’ core selfevaluation did not exert an influence in the process of social attribution to mobile phones. This supports the importance of anthropomorphism in the designing of mobile technology for tourists, in that more intelligent and social phones are potentially more persuasive to influence tourists’ behaviour regardless of their personality.

Keywords

Mobile technology Social attribution Anthropomorphism CASA Continuum of perspective 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Apple, Inc. (n.d.). Siri: Your Wish is its Command. Retrieved January 3, 2012, from http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/siri.html
  2. Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, T. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1): 74-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chin, W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Marcoulides. G. A. (ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research (pp. 295-336). New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Dillon, W.R. & Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate Analysis, Methods and Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Edwards, S. J., Blythe, P. T., Scott, S. & Weihong-Guo, A. (2006). Tourist information delivered through mobile devices: Findings from the image project. Information Technology & Tourism 8: 31-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1968). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar
  7. Fogg, B.J. (1998). Persuasive computers: Perspectives and research directions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gretzel, U. (2011). Intelligent systems in tourism: A social science perspective. Annals of Tourism Research 38 (3): 757-779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guthrie, S. E. (1993). Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, B. & Henningsen, D. D. (2008). Social facilitation and human–computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (6): 2965-2971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, R. D. (2001). Tool or Social Actor: Factors Contributing to Differential Social Attributions toward Computing Technology. College Park: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, R. D., Marakas, G. M. & Palmer, J. W. (2006). Differential social attributions toward computing technology: An empirical examination. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64: 446-460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, R. D., Marakas, G. M., & Palmer, J. W. (2008). Beliefs about the social roles and capabilities of computing technology: Development of the computing technology continuum of perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27 (2): 169-181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kabassi, K. (2010). Personalizing recommendations for tourists. Telematics and Informatics 27 (1): 51-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, E.-U. (2010). The more humanlike, the better? How speech type and users’ cognitive style affect social responses to computers. Computers in Human Behavior 26: 665-672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41(3): 397-404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marakas, G. M., Johnson, R.D., & Palmer, J. W. (2000). A theoretical model of differential social attributions toward computing technology: When metaphor become the model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52: 719-750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, D., Alzua, A., & Lamsfus, C. (2011). A contextual geofencing mobile tourism service, In R. Law, M. Fuchs, F. Ricci (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2011 (Pp. 191-202), Vienna: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2011). Mplus User’s Guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  21. Nass, C. & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B. J., Reeves, B. & Dryer, C. (1995). Can computer personalities be human personalities? International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 43, 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nass, C, Steuer, J., & Tauber, E.R. (1994). Computers are social actors. In the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Celebrating interdependence (pp. 72–78), Boston: Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  24. Rasinger, J., Fuchs, M., & Höpken, W. (2007). Information search with mobile tourist guides: A survey of usage intention. Information Technology & Tourism 9(3-4): 177-194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Stanford, CA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schmeil, A. & Broll, W. (2007). An Anthropomorphic AR-based Personal Information Manager and Guide. Proceedings of HCI International 2007, July 22-27, Beijing, PR China.Google Scholar
  27. Sproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., & Walker, J. H. (1996). When the interface is a face. HumanComputer Interaction, 11: 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sundar, S.S. (2004). Loyalty to computer terminals: Is it anthropomorphism or consistency? Behaviour & Information Technology 23(2):107-118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turkle, S. (1984). The Second Self. New York: Simon and Schuster. Tussyadiah, Iis P. and Florian J. Zach (2012). The role of geo-based technology in place experiences. Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2): 780-800.Google Scholar
  30. Wang, D., Park, S. & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2011). The role of smartphones in mediating the touristic experience. Journal of Travel Research 51(4): 371-387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Tourism, Innovation and Culture, Institute of Design & CommunicationUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations